Drone registration

I look at this as being beneficial in separating the well behaved (well sometimes!) hobbyists and affectionados from the careless, carefree with no regard for anyone else or anything whether intentional or unintentional.

I fully understand why the introduction of rules, registration and regulation makes ones blood boil with the onset of anger. Things that are perfectly legal and enjoyed by many become illegal and yet just as often the illegal becomes legal.

However, in this instance when I see how cheap quadcopters/drones have become, I am not surprised that certain freedoms we enjoyed have been abused.

Let us face it, anyone can walk into a store - buy a ready to fly and immediately take it into the blue yonder with no training. Any consequent damage or injury is difficult to follow through to tracing the culprit without any identification

While I think that it will be difficult to police - no identification on a drone should be sufficient for confiscation without waiting for an incident. For me that is like driving a car without license plates, not registered and probably not insured.

As usual though, this is taken to extremes in applying this to non camera equipped RC models and control line craft (flown within a 70' dome!) by jobsworths who don't understand the hobby. Even camera equipped craft flown over open fields and away from built up areas have all been dragged under the same classification.

You Tube is full of examples of abuse by a multitude of drone flyers the heights and distances they fly these things to are outrageous. There has to be some responsibility.

Let us face it do we really want anonymity in our hobby that lets idiots get away with flagrant stupidity.

This hasn't been applied in the UK yet. We have restrictions - 50 meter distance from buildings or people, no more than 400ft up (200ft in my area) and not over crowds. I see this being flouted all the time and it will end in tears.

VUgearhead

done deal

Decades ago congress abdicated their constitution responsibility (and accountability ) by creating agencies such as the FCC, DOT (FAA is subordinate) and others like DOE and even the IRS

Later they wrote into law that these agencies had rule making authority and the ability to collect fees (taxes) and perform enforcement (fines and jail)

we citizens ONLY are allowed to comment on any proposed rule making and then accept WHATEVER they decide

very rarely has any rule and enforcement been overturned by the congress or the supreme court

We're in this situation primarily due to a small number of people who have flown their UAS in a careless or dangerous manner. It was simply a matter of time until the government took the position (as always) to punish the majority of safe law abiding citizens in order to corral the actions of a few. As was aptly pointed out in previous posts, those people who will break the law or regulations controlling R/C flight will be the same ones that will not register.

Recent accidents and airspace incursion have simply accelerated the FAA decree, not to mention the idiots who have published FPV video on YouTube and other social media of flights well outside the AMA specified envelope. As our club president said frequently, it's coming whether it makes sense or not.

The fee is negligible; my greatest concern is government incompetence in maintaining the privacy of my personal information.

Here's a copy of a post I made on Stunthangar this evening. See what y'all think:

Rusty wrote:I learned something about this from my flying buddy today. He is an FAA accident investigator(Ret.), and says we fly in Class G airspace, which is free uncontrolled air. It's not regulated at all.

Scroll gown to Class G (Gulf)
http://www.vatusa.net/training/tiki-index.php?page=the_national_airspace_system

it says,"Class golf airspace is uncontrolled airspace. We as air traffic controllers are unable to control an aircraft while they are inside the confines of the Class Golf airspace. You may think of Class Golf airspace as "government free" or "go anywhere." The Class Golf airspace begins at surface level and extends up to the Echo above it (700AGL or 1200AGL). In some locations the Class Golf airspace extends as high as 14,500 ft MSL."
There is an illustration to accompany the explanation.


It looks to me like control line can not reach regulated airspace. What are y'alls opinions on that?
Rusty

is one of my son's kites, yes a kite!, exceeds the designated weight limit and would need to be registered for in order to fly 'legally'.

RknRusty wrote:Here's a copy of a post I made on Stunthangar this evening. See what y'all think:

Rusty wrote:I learned something about this from my flying buddy today. He is an FAA accident investigator(Ret.), and says we fly in Class G airspace, which is free uncontrolled air. It's not regulated at all.

Scroll gown to Class G (Gulf)
http://www.vatusa.net/training/tiki-index.php?page=the_national_airspace_system

it says,"Class golf airspace is uncontrolled airspace. We as air traffic controllers are unable to control an aircraft while they are inside the confines of the Class Golf airspace. You may think of Class Golf airspace as "government free" or "go anywhere." The Class Golf airspace begins at surface level and extends up to the Echo above it (700AGL or 1200AGL). In some locations the Class Golf airspace extends as high as 14,500 ft MSL."
There is an illustration to accompany the explanation.


It looks to me like control line can not reach regulated airspace. What are y'alls opinions on that?
Rusty

Rusty, I think that the "air controllers" may not have control in class Golf, but the FAA wants to be able to. I can't locate it right now, but someone on another forum had posted the national "no fly" zone map. Indicating that it could be extended to cover "most every area" in the power grab by the FAA ruling. I don 't know how this is all going to settle out, but I sure hope they (FAA/govmt) don't ruin our hobby.

I think y'all are looking at the glass half empty versus the glass half full!! In other words, I think, we as modelers SHOULD, gladly and enthusiastically comply with this ruling whether silly, unnecessary, or whatever!! Come December 21st, personally, I am going to "flood" the system with registrations .... my wife, my adult kids, my grandkids, my cousins .... literally everyone I can think of who I've ever shown how to fly whether c/l, r/c or free flight. The hang up may be filling in all the miscellaneous information they ask for on the registration form because I haven't see one as yet. I may not have everything on hand, but since I'm going to get my $5 bucks back anyway .... what the heck?? Nothing lost!! But I'm going to do whatever I can to do my part to make their system crash with a load of irrelevant data and , AND I get my money back for it!! What a hoot!!

What's that hacker organization that purports to uphold their ideal of freedom? Are they called 'Anonymous'?

I wonder if a word could be put out that might attract their attention to this travesty of a regulation?

LOL! I'll bet this post clicked off a few terrorist sniffers at the NSA HQ!

I hand wrote two letters today to my Texas Senators

The Honorable Mr. John Cornyn
United States Senate
Washington D.C 20510

From:
Frederick C von Gortler IV
US Army Retied First Sergeant
305 CR 4330
Lampasas Texas 76550
December 16 2015
Subject: DOT/FAA Interim Rule making adversely impacting US citizens
Honorable Mr. Cornyn

Sir the DOT/FAA has created an Interim rule to register model aircraft operators that I believe does not comply with the INTENT of the 112Th Congress.

My representatives at the time, yourself, and the Honorable Mrs. Hutchison, voted to preserve the hobby of Model aviation and restrict the FAA from creating (new) rules applying to model aircraft for hobby use.

Below is an excerpt of that public law.

I would like your staff to look into this and brief you.

This new rule imposes a level of more government and control that you seem to generally object to, as I do. I fail to see how expending several hundred million dollars registering EVERY Hobbyist Model Airplane Operator can attain the stated objective of the DOT/FAA.

In my opinion this is another example of punishing law abiding citizens with fees (taxes) and threats of fines and imprisonment with little or no effectiveness to the stated goal of making the National Air-Space (NAS) safer.

I contend that my legal, safe use of my kit or scratch built hobby model airplanes poses ZERO risk to any users of the NAS.

While I agree that $5.00 to be registered for 3 years is of little or no real consequence, I object to the Federal government threatening me with fines and imprisonment for non-compliance as I seek to constitutionally pursue my happiness (building and flying small model airplanes).

V/R
Your voting constituent
Frederick C von Gortler IV
US Army Retired First Sergeant

Interestingly, the regulations, which were probably aimed at rogue drone pilots (and will have no effect) were written in such a broad form manner that they will sweep up a number of other recreational groups, i.e., parasailors, both powered and unpowered, wind surfers, towed commercial parasail businesses (problematic since they must now apply for commercial exemption), some stunt kites and recreational kites over 250 grams (now limited to 400' altitude). Powered parasails may escape since they could claim the UAS includes the engine, but that puts them into another regulated group above 55 pounds.

All the above represent a tethered AUS where the controlling "pilot" is not directly in the AUS.

True free flight models, regardless of weight, and model rockets that contain no guidance systems should be exempt according to the definition.

Gawd, I'm feeling safer already; a warm and fuzzy from the FAA.

I did not see any part of this that say's I must use a credit card to pay for the registration, can I pay by Money Order if I do not expect a refund ?

RK Flyer

RK flyer

Some how I expect the initial web site to crash all day long ( like Obama care)

I suspect that is where they MIGHT let you pre register on line, and pay by snail mail or print a form and do the whole thing snail mail.... we just don't know enough yet

The answer may be in the FAQs on their web site

"Hi, I'm from the FAA and I'm here to help." What a load of crap!

Weird how this kind of stuff changes your perception of what you see.  The local Walmart has a GoPro display with a demo video of a pelican, flying along the beaches with a backwards-facing camera strapped to it's beak.

Pretty great footage, but aside from drawing the ire of P.E.T.A., I had to joke to myself, "Wonder if he's got a number tattooed to his butt?!"  Remember when Capt. Sully got goosed?

I can see our local retired FAA inspector being reactivated, and approaching a Falconer, asking, "Sir, have you registered your bird?!"

Imagine after the 30 day free fee time period and 2 million folks sign up and pay
the fee for their 8oz plus flying recreation toys. Bingo the FAA just got funded
10 million dollars. Begs the question do they get taxed for the income infusion?

The butt head in me plans to mess with ( in a very small way) the FAA free sign up registration period by registering all my family members over 13 years old

This is the federal government that spent three years trying to get the Obama Care web site coded before they went live and it crashed every 5 minuets for months

The FAA has only had 6 months to get ready for this (I seriously think they already planned to do this registration long before they went through the notice and comment dance)

I am planning to help crash it in every legal way I can.... hoping the national media has a few stories about yet again another example of government incompetence

Maybe the Force can help us

But in order to improve the safety of the NAS, wouldn't it have just been simpler to expand the realm of No Fly Zones around airports and population centers, and then only allowing UAS's to fly in strictly defined spaces within said NFZ's (like AMA fields) and/or by special permit (i.e. drone coverage of special events)? That way, any use outside those NFZ's would be unaffected, and any use within would be clearly regulated and/or controlled.

Add in a realistic criteria for UAS, and I would be far more amenable to such a policy than what is being force fed down my throat at the current time.

What do you all think?

Many decades ago we lost a lot of easy to use PUBLIC space to play with our toys, mostly because of noise and some real concern about children playing with a propeller on a 10,000+ rpm engine

Legal and convenient flying sites are the exception. If a place is legal it is rarely convenient, and conversely the local park is  usually convenient by rarely legal  to fly an airplane, or run a tether car, or even a model boat)

BUT VUgearhead is asking what many of us commentators to the NPRM said.... to provide safety in the NAS many things should be considered and some rational study of the risks must be done so we can find the most efficient and cost effective way to control Commercial and Hobby use of the NAS.

Most every one of us questioned the wisdom of registering every hobby pilot as opposed to education and providing safe places to use our hobby toys

If an American citizen was to pay attention they would notice the federal government has long been interested in getting as many of us as possible into multiple data bases so they can observe and control our behavior

This DOT FAA rule is more about the data base and not so much about serious NAS safety (IMO)

IMO Nothing about registering a compliant law abiding citizen is likely to prevent a DRONE collision and Might have some after the fact use to assign liability

I seriously doubt a taped on label will matter in a drone-collision accident. If you read the "near miss" reports basically if the pilot SAW a drone or model airplane it is classed a near-miss.


Phil

Here is the latest, as of this afternoon, from the AMA .....

I agree with them .... hold off on any registrations .... we have time ... let them do what they need to do and see if they can correct this through legal and political channels .....

-----------------------

Dear AMA Members,

Yesterday, the AMA Executive Council unanimously approved an action plan to relieve and further protect our members from unnecessary and burdensome regulations. This plan addresses the recently announced interim rule requiring federal registration of all model aircraft and unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) weighing between 0.55 and 55 pounds.

AMA has long used a similar registration system with our members, which we pointed out during the task force deliberations and in private conversations with the FAA. As you are aware, AMA's safety program instructs all members to place his or her AMA number or name and address on or within their model aircraft, effectively accomplishing the safety and accountability objectives of the interim rule. AMA has also argued that the new registration rule runs counter to Congress' intent in Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, otherwise known as the "Special Rule for Model Aircraft."

The Council is considering all legal and political remedies to address this issue. We believe that resolution to the unnecessary federal registration rule for our members rests with AMA's petition before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. This petition, filed in August 2014, asks the court to review the FAA's interpretation of the "Special Rule for Model Aircraft." The central issue is whether the FAA has the authority to expand the definition of aircraft to include model aircraft; thus, allowing the agency to establish new standards and operating criteria to which model aircraft operators have never been subject to in the past.

In promulgating its interim rule for registration earlier this week, the FAA repeatedly stated that model aircraft are aircraft, despite the fact that litigation is pending on this very question. The Council believes the FAA's reliance on its interpretation of Section 336 for legal authority to compel our members to register warrants the Court's immediate attention to AMA's petition.  

While we continue to believe that registration makes sense at some threshold and for flyers operating outside of a community-based organization or flying for commercial purposes, we also strongly believe our members are not the problem and should not have to bear the burden of additional regulations.  Safety has been the cornerstone of our organization for 80 years and AMA's members strive to be a part of the solution.

As we proceed with this process, we suggest AMA members hold off on registering their model aircraft with the FAA until advised by the AMA or until February 19, the FAA's legal deadline for registering existing model aircraft.

Holding off on registration will allow AMA time to fully consider all possible options. On a parallel track, it also allows AMA to complete ongoing conversations with the FAA about how best to streamline the registration process for our members.

In the near future, we will also be asking our members to make their voices heard by submitting comments to the FAA's interim rule on registration. We will follow-up soon with more detailed information on how to do this.

Thank you for your continued support of AMA. We will provide you with more updates as they become available.

Kind regards,


The AMA Executive Council

Bob Brown, AMA President
Gary Fitch, AMA Executive Vice President
Andy Argenio, AMA Vice President, District I
Eric Williams, AMA Vice President, District II
Mark Radcliff, AMA Vice President, District III
Jay Marsh, AMA Vice President, District IV
Kris Dixon, AMA Vice President, District V
Randy Cameron, AMA Vice President, District VI
Tim Jesky, AMA Vice President, District VII
Mark Johnston, AMA Vice President, District VIII
Jim Tiller, AMA Vice President, District IX
Lawrence Tougas, AMA Vice President, District X
Chuck Bower, AMA Vice President, District XI

Heres another update ....

-------------------------------------------

The AMA Executive Council meet last night and gave us some direction.  Note that there have been some changes on what AMA’s position is and how it effects our members.

1.       The AMA has been assured by FAA that registration only applies to RC aircraft. Traditional CL aircraft are exempt.  However, if you use RC in any of your CL aircraft (some do) then you would have to register.

2.       AMA is now recommending that AMA members hold off on registration while AMA pursues legal action.  AMA will be putting out another e-mail concerning this later today or tomorrow with more details on how this position came about.

So, the bottom line here is that this situation is fluid and there are almost daily changes.  Please, PLEASE make sure you are getting the latest e-mails from AMA and check the website DAILY to make sure you have all the current info.


Tony Stillman

Flying Site Assistance Coordinator/Competitions-Technical Director

Academy of Model Aeronautics

www.modelaircraft.org

800-435-9262 Ext. 230

Hi CEF members
Looking at everyone's posts on the subject I thought I'd think outside of the box.
Seeing that U.S. uses drones in warfare our enemies may be quick to do the same.
Drones have the capability via GPS to pinpoint targets.  Walmart is already using drones in their warehouses and is exploring the possibility of home delivery using drones.   We could see dozens of drones carrying packages buzzing above our homes in the future.
How do you differentiate the hostile from the friendly one? Maybe just destroy it if it is flying in restricted air space
Just thinking out loud
coxaddict